bonding services

[esc]

Hi guys. If the water and gas services enter the building close to one another, do we need to bond each service seperatly back to the MET or can we link them with bonding conductor and go to the MET with just one bonding conductor?, if that makes sense!
Cheers

 

[GaryM]

Duplicate.

 

[GaryM]

Yes you can use one single conductor though I personally prefer separate conductors.

 

[MarkieSparkie]

You can use one conductor and daisy chain the terminations. If you do this, it is good practice to do so with one continuous conductor.

 

[flyingsparc]

I used to always run in a cable for each service, until during one of my annual assessments the assessor said it can be one as long as it is continuous (not cut and jointed at any point), so from your description I would just run in the one cable.

 

[esc]

Thanks flyingspark. I believe that with any ciruit we are working on, we're resposible for that circuit only. When installing bonding, how far does that extend, we do main services, gas water and the CH, and are we required to extend that searching the house to find and cover any supp bonding thats needed?
Cheers

 

[IQ Electrical]

Thanks flyingspark. I believe that with any ciruit we are working on, we're resposible for that circuit only. When installing bonding, how far does that extend, we do main services, gas water and the CH, and are we required to extend that searching the house to find and cover any supp bonding thats needed?
Cheers

Your responsibility is to ensure that earthing & bonding are adequate before commencing additions/alterations.

This covers the means of earthing and main protective bonding (gas, water, oil etc.).

There is no requirement to bond central heating pipework unless the pipework itself meets the definition of an extraneous-conductive part (very rare).

 

[esc]

Thanks for that IQ Electrical, much appreciated.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

In GN8 its shown as one, continuous conductor daisyed to each service (i believe), but never seen a problem with two runs from the MET either...?

 

[IQ Electrical]

In GN8 its shown as one, continuous conductor daisyed to each service (i believe), but never seen a problem with two runs from the MET either...?

Extraneous-conductive-parts may be, and often are, connected to the MET individually,
as shown in Figure --- However, it is permitted to connect them collectively or in
groups where the protective equipotential bonding conductor is looped from one
extraneous-conductive-part to another. Where bonding is undertaken in this way, the
protective equipotential bonding conductor should remain unbroken at intermediate
points, as shown in Figure ---, thus maintaining continuity to other extraneousconductive-
parts should one be disconnected for whatever reason.

 

[GaryM]

As an aside, whilst I agree that the conductor is best left unbroken when looped to another extraneous conductive part there seems to be no definitive regulation regarding this.
I personally don't think there's much wrong with conductors connected via an eylet crimp to a BS951 clamp then onto the next. They're intended to be mechanically secure, accessible for inspection and should bear a warning notice - 'Safety electrical connection, do not remove'.

 

[davie spark]

Short answer, you can combine both bonds in one cable as long as you don't cut the cable. Double over the cable at the first bonding point and fit a crimp of suitable size, then bond the remaining utility using a crimp suitable for the cable size. Appropriately label the conductor at the main earth terminal.

 

[i=p/u]

when you main bond services, does this not take away the need for supplementry bonding.......???? is what i believe but hesitant now....
also what is the test you do to test is an extraneous conductive part??? IR test between met and conductive part in question and reading should be ????? im half way there ooooooooooooooooooooooo im half way there oooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[davie spark]

when you main bond services, does this not take away the need for supplementry bonding.......???? NO IT DOESN'T is what i believe but hesitant now....
also what is the test you do to test is an extraneous conductive part??? EARTH CONTINUITY TEST, METER SET TO 'LOW OHMS' IDEAL READING LESS THAN 0.5 OHMS, TEST BETWEEN PART AND MAIN EARTH TERMINAL .eIR test between met and conductive part in question and reading should be ????? im half way there ooooooooooooooooooooooo im half way there oooooooooooooooooooooo​

 

[i=p/u]

To test if something is extraneous do you not do an ir test to earth